Reading 1: Ezra 10

v.3 - This is one of the occasions where the word for make in 'make a covenant' is the word 03772 karath, which means to cut. There are a number of other interesting passages where this word and the word 01285 riyth (covenant) occur together. The concept of cutting a covenant seems to be a 'deeper' concept than when a more ordinary word for make is used. There are also clear implications with the securing of the old covenant in the cutting off of the flesh in circumcision, for which this same word is used, and also in the cutting off of those that do not keep the covenant. Gen. 9:11,15:18,17:14

10:1 Severe distress and prayer being linked can be seen in the following passages.1 Samuel 1:10 Ezra 10:1 Nehemiah 1:4
These, and other passages, demonstrate that prayer is not something which is undertaken standing in the meeting room or around the meal table.
Of course the supreme example is the Lord Jesus. Hebrews 5:7

v.1-5 - We see here how confession leads not, as we might imagine, to weakness, but to strength of faith and a real sense of rededication of ourselves to God. We cannot rededicate our lives (something we all need to do regularly) without serious confession of our faults, as least to God, and preferably to each other (James 5:16).

That marriages between Jews and the inhabitants of the land of Israel had taken place by now indicates that the enthusiasm of the early return had wained in some of the Jews. Doubtless the enthusiasm for the things of God waned as they thought less of the way that God had brought them to the land and more of how they were going to make their way in the land. The world crowded in and pushed the hope of Israel out. This was despite the presence of other faithful brethren. So we see that we each have a personal need to keep ourselves firm in our faith. We cannot rely on the enthusiasm of others.

V.3 The Hebrew word for covenant is berith. It carries the idea of cutting. The word used in Genesis 15:18 where God made a covenant with Abram by dividing (cutting) various animals and passing through them as a lamp of fire.

The significance of the cutting meant that the animals could not be restored. In other words, the idea of severing meant that the covenant could not be broken.

Circumcision for a male Jew on his eighth day is called a brit, which, of course, is derived from the Hebrew word for covenant.

10:6 In saying that Ezra "rose up from before the house of God" we see the end of the prayer and comment which had started in Ezra 9:5 when Ezra "fell upon [his] knees ..." The chapter division between 9 and 10 is unhelpful as it breaks into the flow of the narrative. Whilst the prayer does finish at the end of chapter 9 the comment in Ezra 10:1-5 is a direct response to the prayer and so is included in the time when Ezra was on his knees before God.

Ezra’s prayer in yesterday’s chapter is answered in today’s reading. Ezra had told God that the people had been sinful, despite the fact that the Lord had richly blessed them. The chapter ends on a sad note, giving the names of all the Levites who had taken false wives. But the end result was that they gave up their non-Jewish wives, and offered an offering to God.

V.2 This hope, however, depended on measures of reformation, and therefore, instead of surrendering themselves to despair or despondency, Ezra counselled them to repent and to amend their ways without delay, relying on God's mercy.

10:3,9 We have noticed in the past that the ‘trembling’ echoed Isa 66:2 The context of Isa 66 relates to the building of a house for God and the inability of the earth to contain Him so it is most appropriate for the days of Ezra when they were building the temple – the building was of no value if the people were not already holy! Likewise we, in ecclesial life, must be pure in heart and mind before we start the work.

10:18 We see, in the fact that the sons of the priests had taken strange wives, a sad comment. The priests, whose lips should have kept knowledge – Mal 2:7 - were setting a bad example by their lives. Whatever good teaching came from their mouths it was not credible because their lives were compromised. 1Tim 3:10

V.3 It seems harsh to send away wives and children. However, obeying Yahweh came first. Those who were sent away would be provided for well. They would return to their original families who would take care of them. Later we shall see Nehemiah's concern over the matter of mixed marriages (Ch.13).

10:1 The prayer of Ezra after he had highlighted the error to the people brought about repentance. Ezra builds upon the repentance by encouraging the people to make a covenant – 10:3. He does not sit back complacently when repentance manifested itself. He used it as the basis for further work.

10:10 Ezra does not mince his words or try to minimise what had been done wrong. A clear outlining of the sin is essential as a basis for repentance which in turn brings about a change in life style. Likewise we do not help when a brother or sister has sinned if we pretend the sin is not that important, or do not spell it out. It is only when the magnitude of what has been done is seen that correct remedial actions can be taken.

Ezra 10:1 - "...before the house of God there assembled unto him out of Israel a very great congregation..." - this reminds of how it will be in the last days when the house of David is restored and Christ comes to rule in his Father's kingdom on earth (2Sam 7:11,12,16;Isa 2:1-4;Matt 5:5;Matt 6:10).

Ezra 10:2 - Jehiel took a foreign wife (Ezra 10:26); in spite of Israel's unfaithfulness there is hope - this echoes how we are all unfaithful on some level, but through the new covenant in Christ's blood and by being married to Christ believers have hope (Mark 2:18-20;Matt 25:1-13).

Ezra 10:3 - making a "covenant" [Heb. "beriyth" (1285) means "(in the sense of cutting) a compact (made by passing pieces of flesh), covenant" etc.] which perhaps echoes the new covenant made by Christ's blood; acting according to the law we should send away things that are unfaithful to God's ways and embrace Christ our faithful bridegroom (Matt 19:3-12;Deut 24:1-4;Rev 21:9).

Ezra 10:6 - Ezra withdrew and perhaps reminds us how Christ withdrew (Acts 1:9-11) but the names "Johanan" [(3076) means "Jah favoured, Jah has graced"] and "Eliashib" [ (475) means "God will restore, God restores"] perhaps remind us of the kingdom of God on earth once again but with Christ as king; Ezra fasted and previously mentioned was Moses' fasting (Deut 9:18) which remind us of that of Christ (Matt 4:1-2;Matt 26:28-29).

Ezra 10:7-9 - v.7 - children of the captivity to assemble in Jerusalem (perhaps this reminds us how former slaves to sin and death will live in God's kingdom with Jerusalem the capital; v.8 - mention of three days (perhaps reminds us of divine perfection and Christ's resurrection) and the rejection of some at judgment (Luke 13:22-28); v.9 - another mention of three days and of people gathered in Jerusalem.

“And Ezra the priest stood up, and said unto them, Ye have transgressed, and have taken strange wives, to increase the trespass of Israel. Now therefore make confession unto the LORD God of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives.”

The breaking up of families may seem harsh and drastic to us, but Ezra understood why this was a necessary and important step to take. One of the reasons is directly in line with God’s command for his people to remain separate from the idolatrous pagan nations around them. They were to be to Him a holy nation, (Deut 14:2;26:19;28:9), and such a liaison would not only lead them into paganism, but their children would be drawn into idolatry as well (Deut 7:1-4). As is often the case, heathen spouses would not be won over to the worship of Israel’s God, but the other way around. To allow the corruption of the nation even by a small minority was to invite certain judgment upon all.

Ezra’s action also preserved the bloodline from which Jesus descended. The Messiah could not descend from a polluted and wicked bloodline (see Jer 22:30).

If Ezra had ignored the problem of the Israelites marrying foreign wives, I wonder what would have happened? Probably nothing. The people would have carried on as they were, the next generations would have lost their faith in God, and Israel would have once again been on the receiving end of God's wrath.

But Ezra made a stand. He showed his shock and horror at the news of this unfaithfulness. He showed godly leadership, even in what could have been in the face of fierce opposition, if those who were guilty had stirred up others against him. Ezra didn't know how it was all going to end, but he took his stand anyway. Ezra's leadership provoked a response in the people, even among those who were guilty of this sin.

"While Ezra was praying and confessing, weeping and throwing himself down before the house of God, a large crowd of Israelites - men, women and children - gathered round him. They too wept bitterly. Then Sheconiah ... said to Ezra, 'We have been unfaithful to our God by marrying foreign women from the peoples around us. ... Now let us make a covenant before our God to send away all these women and children.'"(Ezra 10:1-3)

It was Ezra's leadership that caused the people to recognise their sin, to take ownership of it, to repent and to change. Let us also be people who stand up for what is right and encourage others to do the same.

"Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God (Elohim) to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my Lord (Yahweh), and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law."

What is the law referred to here? It is the law as found in Deut 24:1-2. Barnes Notes on the Bible has this entry: “Let it be done according to the law - i. e., let a formal ‘bill of divorcement’ be given to each foreign wife, whereby she will be restored to the condition of an unmarried woman, and be free to marry another husband (see Deut 24:1-2). The facility of divorce among the Jews is well-known. According to many of the rabbis, a bill of divorcement might he given by the husband for the most trivial cause. Thus, no legal difficulty stood in the way of Shechaniah's proposition; and Ezra regarded it as necessary for the moral and religious welfare of the people.” Note, though, that this counsel came from Yahweh!

These offspring from the mixed marriages in the Hebrew are called, mamzers, and Strong's # <4464> defines this word as: "the root of the word meaning, to alienate; a mongrel, i.e. born of a Jewish father and a heathen mother:-bastard." These mamzers or bastards are addressed under the law in Deut 23:2: "A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord." These mamzers corrupted the lineage of the people God set aside from which the Messiah would come through. This is why this command went forth.

"And they gave their hands that they would put away their wives; and being guilty, they offered a ram of the flock for their trespass."

They "gave their hands" was a solemn manner attesting to the fact that they would put away their strange wives according to the law, and acknowledged their mistake of making a covenant with them and offered a ram for their sin.

This was a very painful time for the congregation; for I am sure they had grown to love their wives and their children. But, this was the only way that God's blessings would be brought back to Israel. Though this sounds harsh and unfair in most people’s opinion, where opinion differs from God's Word, it is that opinion that needs changing.

10:2 “we have trespassed” is probably one of the hardest things for us to acknowledge. However it seems that in response to Ezra’s confession Shechaniah is moved to confess his errors. The example of one faithful man can impact upon others. This challenges us to live appropriate lives as well.

The wrath of God was ready to come upon the people because they had married wives from other nations. What kind of God acts like that? It seems completely out of character for the loving God who loved mankind so much that He gave His son to save them from their sins, doesn't it?

Actually, no. If God were only concerned with saving people, He would have just saved all of mankind without bothering to have His son go through the cross. But He didn't. He let Jesus die.

If God were only concerned with saving lives, He would have made the Ark bigger. Let's put it this way; God was more concerned to save the Elephant, Cow, Monkey and Pig than all of mankind upon whom He brought the flood and drowned them.

Some people can't serve a God like that. If that's you, perhaps you should stop reading this... except I think there is an explanation that's worth considering before you give up on God. While you read this next bit, and put yourself in the shoes of Noah or his wife.

Noah and his family were the only ones not murdering others.

Yes, see for yourself in Genesis, as it progresses step by step:

- Cain had killed Abel

- Cain was cast out and set up his own city, the start of the civilisation that got destroyed in the flood

- Cain's whole family was defined by that one murder - and murder became their hallmark

For I have killed a man for wounding me, Even a young man for hurting me.If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, Then Lamech seventy-sevenfold."

Can you see how proud they were of their murderous heritage? The whole family line of those who rejected God, were defined by murder. Genesis presents only two family lines - that through Cain and through his surviving brother, Seth. Thus one half of the population of the earth were of this alternative religion, based on murder, and the other half did what God wanted - peace and righteousness. The two lines perhaps balanced one another somewhat.

If you've stayed with me so far, now is where we come back to our subject of Israel (God's chosen family line) marrying outside the faith. Here's what Genesis says about the reason for the flood:

"The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth."

How was it that God decided to destroy all flesh, when there was this non violent line of people?

"the sons of God (Seth's line) saw the daughters of men (Cain's line), that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose."

... and it was this that destroyed the line of Seth. Having intermarried for a few generations, the lines were no longer distinct, and the dominant theology - that of murder and violence, threatened to engulf the whole of mankind - all flesh. Genesis is emphatic about what brought about the flood. It was the intermarrying of Seth's line with Cain's line, and the resultant pollution of the whole earth with violence.

Now put yourself in Noah's shoes, or his wife's shoes. You are the only family left on the whole earth that doesn't condone murder. Can you imagine it? You have three lovely young boys. How do they get to school safely? Every day your whole day is spent sick with worry until they arrive back home. This takes its toll on your health. Eventually you take the boys out of school after yet another murder, knife attack, ritual sacrifice or other un-imaginable evil. You start to educate the boys at home - but violence is always at the door. God protects you again and again from destruction by the hands of the people who used to be your own friends or family. Now here's the real shocker, the real twist in the story...

Your dad, a righteous man, a man of power and authority in the community, whose protection you obviously benefit from, marries two new wives... Adah and Zillah. Do you remember them? Scroll up to halfway through this comment and you'll find them there. Yes, Noah's father was Lamech, and this man, one of the last of the righteous line of Seth, married two beautiful women of Cain's line. These women turned his heart from following God. Listen to his triumphant words as he finally accepts their theology:

"If the great Lamech is going to accept murder - then I'm going to do it properly! If Cain slew one man then I will slay seventy!"

Here disappeared Noah and his wife's last hope. It is this incident that is given to us as the end of the road for God too. Within one more generation Noah's sons or grandsons would give in and marry women like this, or if not, be killed. Put yourself in the shoes of Noah's wife. Will you accept murder to remain safe for a while longer? Will you accept Lamech's offer of continued protection - under the condition that you eventually accept his philosophy? Or will you cling to God and to peace and righteousness and disappear? Have you ever thought of the flood story in such a stark fashion?

God stepped in and destroyed those murderers before they destroyed the last of His family, and you know what, Noah and his wife were so relieved; so grateful for God's action. Wouldn't you be?

Go back to Ezra 10 and let's be in no doubt that the situation was just as stark. Marrying these women meant embracing a religion that condoned child murder in sacrifice to their gods (see 2Chron 28:3). What would you do if you were Ezra? Wouldn't you weep and mourn, and if you were God, would you not be angry?

10:16 It had been shown that the law of Moses had been violated. So the people “examined the matter” However they went further than just thinking about what had been said. They acted upon their understanding of the requirements of the law. Three months later those who had sinned were expected to respond and committed themselves to observing the requirements of the law.

10:5 Immorality in the form of inappropriate marriages was a problem for the whole nation, including the priests. However Ezra starts with the priests. They had to change their way of living. If they did not then their message to others would lack credibility. In like manner our lives should reflect the words we speak.

10:19 Humility and repentance is not easy. These “important” men acknowledged their error and made amends by taking action to resolve their error. How often do we fail to respond to a challenge of our behaviour simply because we are too proud to acknowledge the truth of the point made?

“… We have trespassed against our God, and have taken strange wives of the people of the land: yet now there is hope in Israel concerning this thing.”

Wives is # <802>, Ishshah. It is the same word Adam used for his wife, Eve (Gen 2:23. Eve was Adam’s woman, and she was also his wife. The holy seed had covenanted marriages with alien women. They weren’t just living with them, as some purport, which if true, would not have necessitated using the Law of Deut 24:1-4.

Under the Law of Moses, the Israelites were given an explicit prohibition not to make covenants with the heathen around them, nor to show them mercy (Deut 7:1-3). The heathen were notoriously evil and idolatrous and such a union would corrupt the Israelites. Gentiles were considered unclean under the clean and unclean system that divided animals, people and the land, and was meant to teach separation between the clean and unclean. They were unequally yoked (2Cor 6:14-18).

During the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, all the Israelites who married foreign wives were commanded to put them away according to the law, v. 3 (i.e. Deut 24:1-4). They had disobeyed by making covenants with them, and took Gentile daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, and mingled the holy race with the heathen peoples around them (Ezra 9:1,2). Ezra had prayed over this and wept bitterly (Ezra 10:1).

When the decree was read to the people, they did not rise up against Ezra, but humbly said, “we have greatly transgressed in this matter (Ezra 10:2,13), and “so must we do” (Ezra 10:3,12). Only a small minority opposed Ezra (Ezra 10:15). Ezra had set his heart to seek the Law of Yahweh, to teach its statues and ordinances and to do it (Ezra 7:10). Ezra stated plainly, Deut 24 was “the law of the LORD.” The plan of Ezra's was of Yahweh!

Under the Law of Christ, Yahweh, not His son, now pronounced a cleansing of the Gentiles who work righteousness and fear Him (Acts 10:14,15,28,34,35), and the apostle Paul gave the command to marry only in the Lord (1Cor 7:39).

10:5 We see, in that the people were made to swear before God, that the problem was with God. Not just between themselves. It is important to appreciate that our behaviour towards other impacts upon our Father as well.

11:8 Admah and Zeboim were two of the five cities of the plain that were destroyed in the days of Lot. The reference, however, is to Deut 29:23 In the context of the curses spoken at the border of the land Israel is likened to those cities which were overthrown. Hosea is taking up the same message and applying it in his own days

v.12 - We know from experience that this contrast exists within any community. All we can do as individuals is to place ourselves as the mercy of God, confessing our sins and pleading His forgiveness. We are not justified in bad behaviour by the lies and ill practices of those around us.

11:4 In saying 'I was to them as they that take off the yoke on their jaws' the prophet is demonstrating the reality of the bondage that Israel were in when they were in Egypt. They were not just in a foreign country. Rather they were under heavy bondage. It seems that once Israel were out of Egypt they forgot the depravity of their situation. Do we forget the enslavement of sin when we are baptised?

Hos 11:1.We see in this verse God’s care for Israel is compared to that of a father to his children, but then in the 11th verse the prophet shows that God’s love for his people is even greater than the love of a father to his child. ”I am God and not man”

A few days ago someone at the place where I work had a potentially fatal accident. As he reached across a machine to adjust it, his clothes got caught and dragged into the machine. He was fortunate to escape with cuts, bruises and burns and without any more serious injuries. One word has been used to describe his fate over the last week: Lucky.

Maybe there was more to it than luck. Perhaps it was an invisible hand that saved him, a hand or an angel much stronger than the forces that could have killed him. But in a godless society people refuse to admit that such a thing could happen. Instead they prefer to believe in a random event of chance called Luck.

Even Israel had that problem, and they should have been the ones that believed in God. God said, "It was I who taught Ephraim to walk, taking them by the arms; but they did not realise that it was I who healed them." (Hos 11:3) It was not luck that healed Israel, or even their own strength that gave them the basics of life. It was all provided by God.

Life is not a matter of random chance or luck, especially for those of us who believe. God's hand is at work in our lives because he loves us. Attributing our fortune to luck is bordering on blasphemous. Instead let us recognise God's work in our lives and give him the credit and thanks for what he does.

The unusual mention of the cities Admah and Zeboim in Hos 11:8 is explained in Jer 49:18 as “the neighbour cities” of Sodom and Gomorrah, which were destroyed with those two evil places. The same two towns also fought on the side of Sodom and Gomorrah in the battle in which Lot was captured, (Gen 14:1-12)

V.3 We see the care of a parent expanded in this verse. A parent provides all the necessities of life for a child, food, clothing, and shelter. As a child is incapable of providing for himself, so it was with Israel, their God provided everything they needed during their wilderness wanderings. Luke's quote in Acts 13:18 probably refers to this passage. He took them by the arms, to guide them that they might not stray, and to hold them up that they might notstumble

11:4 In speaking of taking off the yoke the prophet speaks of the blessings that will flow upon a faithful Israel – Lev 26:13. He has already made a number of references to the judgements that will flow upon the disobedient quoting Lev 26 and , Deut 28.

11:9 The mention of the cities destroyed in the days of Lot in the previous verse sets the context. Whereas God sent angels to Sodom – Gen 19:11 – there is going to be no similar visitation now – ‘I will not enter into the city’ is making just that point.

Admah, Zeboim and Zoar were all marked for destruction along with Sodom and Gomorrah (Deut 29:23). Only Zoar survived through Lot's pleading. But Admah and Zeboim weren't mentioned by God as needing His vengeance; so why were they judged? The implication is that, since they were neighbouring cities, they hadn't separated themselves from Sodom and Gomorrah, and got caught up in it. In fact, in Gen 14:8 we see that they joined in a confederacy with them.

So in v8 God is likening Ephraim to these two cities who failed to keep apart. We can see in 12:1 that like Admah and Zeboim they made a confederacy with nations around them. It's something for us to think about too.

11:1 Whilst we will realise that the prophecy ‘I called my son out of Egypt’ is a prophecy of an event in Jesus’ life – Matt 2:15 – it is a reminder to Israel that they had been delivered from Egypt and so should not go back there for help. Likewise the ‘world’ we left behind when we accepted Christ cannot deliver us.

11:3 Ephraim was completely ignorant of the fact that God had been a father to them. They had not appreciated His care for them. Nor had they considered that he had taught them as a father does his son. Oblivious to His care they disregarded all that happened and followed other gods. How do we fare? Do we recognise that God is involved in all aspects of our lives or do we simply think that there is no purpose or structure to the things that happen to us?

11:5 The predication that the people would not return to Egypt spells out the folly of trusting in Egypt. Assyria took Egypt captive – Isa 20:1-5 –and would take Ephraim captive also. Deliverance comes only from God and Ephraim did not recognise Him as their saviour so they were not saved from the Assyrians.

11:7 It is really sad that the nation did not learn from their history. Here God speaks of Israel “backsliding”. Despite this when Judah is about to go into captivity the prophet reproves them for the same thing - Jer 31:22.

Reading 3: Colossians 2

v.2 - Let us not be misled into thinking that a mystery, as Paul uses the term quite often, is something that we can't understand. On the contrary, in fact, it is something that those without the knowledge of the gospel can't understand, but we can! Mark 4:11, Rom.11:25, 16:25, Eph.1:9, 3:3-4,9, 5:32, 6:19.

2:18-22 There were those in Colosse who would have the brethren return to the bondage of the law of Moses and the traditions of the elders. The exhortation was that the brethren and sisters should be aware that they were free in Christ Galatians 5:1 and to remember that the rituals that the Judaisers were trying to reintroduce opposed freedom.
We likewise can burden ourselves with traditions which hinder our worship of the father.

Isn't it a subtle thing, to fall back into trusting in your own way of doing things, rather than God's? We love regulations, laws, and rules, because we know where we are with them! We like black or white. It seems obvious to us that we should be serving God by them, doesn't it?

In v20 Paul asks the question "Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations - "Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,.... according to the commandments and doctrines of men?"

A subtle doctrine had been creeping in to the church. People had been saying that in order to serve God, you had to keep the commandments of God without fail. You had to crush your natural feelings by neglecting the body (v23), and bring them under control by the force of your own will (v21). You had to eat and drink and do the right things, or otherwise you would be judged (v16).

Paul tells them how stupid they are to think such! Righteousness in the eyes of God cannot be achieved! If the flesh is the problem (v11, 13) then how can we make the flesh better by ruling over it by a fleshly mind? How can a fleshly mind make the body any less fleshly? It's ludicrous! Paul says the commandments are of no value whatsoever against the indulgences of the flesh (v23). Have you ever tried NOT thinking about a bar of chocolate when you know full well it's in the cupboard waiting to be eaten? Does it work?

How is one to change to be more Godlike, then? By dying to the flesh (killing it) in baptism with Jesus (v12), you are planted as a new seed. Seeds when watered grow of themselves. This new seed will grow if it holds onto Christ (v19), and the increase is given by God. Nowhere in this process does Paul suggest any vain effort on our part. Rather, this automatic process which is controlled by God himself, will happen simply if we set our minds on things above rather than on earthly things (3 v 1, 2). The one will naturally displace the other. Have you ever tried thinking about someone you love? Now do you remember the chocolate?

V.8 The Apostle points here to the dangers of philosophy and the traditions of men. The teaching of Christ is simple, one does not need elaborate knowledge. He also points out that they must not conform to the ways of the world. They must continue to mature in Christ. These lessons still apply in the 21st century.

2:18Whilst the AV has ‘beguile’ here as in2:4 the actual Greek word is different. Here the word has the sense of ‘rob’. The consequence of Eve being ‘beguiled’ was that she was ‘robbed’ of the close fellowship she and Adam had with God.

V.1 Paul's letter to those in Colosse was also read by those in Laodicea. The region containing these two cities was subject to earthquakes. Laodicea was situated about 40 miles (64 km) east of Ephesus. The city (then known as Rhoas) was destroyed by an earthquake. It was rebuilt by Antiochus II, the king of Syria. He named the rebuilt city Laodicea after his wife Laodice. Laodicea became a well-known center of commerce, and was also famous for its production of fine black sheep's wool.

V.9 Jesus had the spirit of God without measure (John 3:34). He had the same mind and purpose of God (John 10:30). He recognized, though, that His Father was greater than He (John 10:29; 14:28). It is clear then, although Jesus was a specially empowered human being, He was not God.

2:9-10The word ‘fullness’ Verse :9 and ‘complete’ v10 are related. So in the sense of being a manifestation of God all we need is to be like Jesus. As he manifested God so should we and that is all that is required of us.

Paul is here condemning some false teachings that appear to be making inroads into the ecclesia at Colossae. There's the reference to false humility, worship of angels, and regulations forbidding handling, tasting, and touching. Which group in his day was he most likely warning the brethren to watch out for?

Just before getting into these warnings, in speaking of the benefits believers receive from Christ's sacrifice (Col 2:12,13), Paul states that God through Christ "canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross." This, to me, provides a strong hint that what he soon thereafter condemns are Jews who are insisting on the need to continue to keep the Law of Moses as the means of salvation. This really has to be the group he is speaking of in vv. 16,17 as well.

"Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration, or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of things to come; the reality is found in Christ."

So it seems logical to me that in the next verses in this chapter, the false teaching must be this Judaizing influence in the first century. Also the "do not handle, taste, and touch" of v. 21 fits the dietary and cleanliness parts of the Law of Moses. But what about the worship of angels? How would that fit in? Since the Law was given originally by God to Moses by the hand of God's angel (Acts 7:38), then maybe that's what Paul is referring to here. The Law was put on such a spiritual pedestal and all Jews would have known that it was given by these angels. Here are a couple of passages where this can be easily seen.

Heb. 2:2 - "For if the message by angels was binding, and every violation and disobedience received its just punishment..."

Gal. 3:19 - "...The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator."

The idea of false humility (vv. 18,23) and harsh treatment of the body (v. 23) fits too with the dietary and other restrictions that were part of this Law. The only potential problem to this interpretation that I can see is what he says in v. 22 - "These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teaching." For weren't the Judaizers attempting to keep a Divine law, not a human one? But this interpretation still holds true, I would think, since by Jesus' sacrifice, the Law was fulfilled and therefore no longer in effect. And if anyone taught that it was, and that it either superceded Christ's teachings or was a necessary add-on to them, he was making what was once a Divine law into a merely human one - since its power had been negated by what Christ had done.

Having said that, is there a modern day 21st century warning to believers? I think there are always tendencies in this direction. They can be easily seen in the Catholic church and its veneration of angels and saints, etc. and to a certain degree in some Protestant ones as well. So Paul's words stand as a continual warning to us to not get wrapped up in any tradition that can take us away from the truth and simplicity of the gospel of Christ.

2:8 The phrase “the traditions of men” is quoted from Mark 7:8. Paul is here using the warning of Jesus about Judaistic influences to instruct the Colossians about the dangers of Judaisers who would lead them away from a commitment to Jesus’ teaching.

Living a life in Christ means realizing that each and every day brings new opportunities to trust God and experience the hand of God at work in our lives. This means accepting Christ as our guide and living by his words. The question we need to ask ourselves everyday is - have we trusted the Lord this day and walked acording to his precepts?

2:14 The “handwriting of ordinances” is the detail of the Law of Moses which no man could keep. The sacrifice of Christ is superior to any sacrifice under the Law of Moses and so can save “to the uttermost” Heb 7:25 whereas the Law of Moses could only highlight the reason for death.

2:5 Paul’s concern for the Colossians even when he was not with them – “absent in the flesh” – teaches us that our concern for others must not be confined to those with whom we meet regularly. We are part of a large family and must be aware of that. Whilst we cannot see all our fellow believers we should still remember them in our prayers.

2:16 Paul is here warning against those who would fault believers because they did not keep the Jewish feasts which the Law of Moses required. The Judaising influence was a real problem during the early years of Christianity.

2:14 We might ask how Jesus took that which was against us away by “nailing it to his cross”. The idea here is similar to that we find in Col 1:20 and so is part of the larger reasoning found in the letter. The way Jesus did it was by total obedience – even unto death – to his heavenly Father. A lesson for us to imitate.